George Dance

When I became Chairman in 1996, our Party had a net debt of over $15,000: a crippling amount for a group of our size. It threatened not only our solvency, but our very existence - Elections Ontario’s predecessor held that it was an illegal debt, and was threatening to deregister us. So my top - almost only - priority was to bring us back to financial solvency. At this year’s Annual Meeting, we announced an actual surplus of over $15,000.

That turnaround was due to the efforts of many: Treasurer Jim McIntosh, who firmly controlled spending; Leader Sam Apelbaum, with his strong belief in economy; and our supporters like you, always there to help us financially. So I am not claiming credit. I am claiming that this priority has been more than met and it’s time to move on. Until now, we have tried to save money; now we must start spending it.

Canadian Libertarian parties, historically, have functioned in either of two ways: (A) They have done little, for lack of funds - that inactivity has kept membership low - and that small membership has kept funds down, in a viciously circle; or (B) some bold dreamers have tried to break out of A by engaging in major political campaigns to Elect Libertarians Now - which have always led, as in the 1995 election, to a crippling debt.

We have been living in A, and must find the way out. But, experience has shown, B is not a way out - because of the debt it always brings, it not only leads right back to A but traps us in it.

That’s the abstract theory. Here’s a concrete example: advertising. I’ll be pushing for a sustained advertising program and budget this year. Advertising is our only way to reach many potential Libertarians; as a side benefit it gives us ‘cred’ with the media, which often leads to further (free) coverage from them in a multiplier effect.

To run a serious B-type campaign to Elect Libertarians, we need to conduct sustained TV advertising. If we cannot do that, without avoiding debt, we will simply waste that money (and all potential gains) by falling back into A-type inaction. And in fact we cannot do that - buying one minute of TV advertising, on one network, would eat up our entire surplus.

So our ad spending must be more modest. As well, it should be targeted toward a different goal - not to elect anyone, but to find and attract our constituency - to grow our Party to the point where it can run serious B-type campaigns without significant debts. If Electing Libertarians is what we want to do, we first have to build a Libertarian party, sustained by a Libertarian community that can do just that.

So what will we do? I have plenty of ideas and plans, which I’ll say more about in future issues. If we’re to discover the best plan, though, we need input from the entire Party, including you: please contact me and us with your own ideas and plans.

As well, as always, we need your financial support. It has been essential in bringing us to this point. Your support will be essential in our moving beyond it.

Jim McIntosh

Brett Skinner, Manager, Pharmaceutical and Health Policy Research at the Fraser Institute, presented the results of research he and others at the Fraser Institute have found comparing Canada’s health care to that of other countries in the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) that provide universal access. 

We all understand that older people generally require more health services than young people, so it is necessary to adjust for this fact when comparing different countries. On an age-adjusted basis, Canada is at the top of the list in spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. 

Skinner pointed out some of the problems in Canada’s government monopoly.  In 2004, the average wait time to see a specialist was 17.9 weeks, compared to 9.3 weeks in 1993.  The actual waiting time exceeded clinically reasonable waiting times in 88% of the 123 categories surveyed. By comparison, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg and Switzerland all have universal health insurance and ZERO wait times.  Canada ranked sixteenth out of 23 countries in doctors per 1000 population.

Lack of access to high tech diagnostic equipment is a contributor to long wait times.  Canada ranks 15th of 24 in access to MRIs, 17th of 23 in access to CT scanners, 8th of 22 in access to radiation machines, and is tied for last in access to lithotriptors (used to shatter kidney and gall stones).

What do other OECD countries have that Canada does not, besides better health care at lower cost?  Consumer co-payments at the point of service; private hospitals competing to supply publicly funded health care; and parallel private medical insurance. For example, only 12 OECD countries rely exclusively on public hospitals and all have experienced long waiting times. Canada is the only country that has full public management of hospital resources and no private parallel insurance system. 

Next Skinner said a public monopoly over health care is not economically sustainable.  An optimistic projection for growth in Ontario government revenues is 1.9% while public health expenditures have been growing at 5.9%.  If this continues, health care would account for 100% of government expenditures by about 2030. Clearly this is not going to happen.  Services will be de-listed.  Taxes (health care premiums) will increase.  Sooner or later something’s gotta’ give.

Skinner pointed out that our health care system has been ‘free-riding’ in a number of ways.  It effectively confiscated the existing infrastructure – hospitals built by private organizations, often charities.  Since 1970 we have been free-riding on the next generation, piling up debt to pay for our health care.  Users free-ride on their neighbors who are paying for the system.  And we are free-riding on the US health care industry’s innovation in drugs, technology and techniques.

Finally, Skinner questioned the morality of a system that relies on leeching off the market and denies people access to medical care in order to sustain itself. Skinner believes the primary obstacle to change is an ideological insistence on an egalitarian approach to health care.  This does not respect the freedom of individuals to preserve and improve their own lives.  It does not provide value for the money and is wasteful.  Ultimately it is not self-sustaining. 

Visit www.libertarian.on.ca to see the charts Brett Skinner presented at the AGM.  Visit their web site at www.fraserinstitute.ca and click on the “Health” research area on the left of the screen. 

Jim McIntosh

Gerry Nichols, Vice President of the National Citizens Coalition, spoke at our Annual General Meeting about the NCC’s ongoing battle to protect our freedom of speech. 

Earlier this year the Supreme Court of Canada – an institution which is supposed to safeguard our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms – actually ruled that the latest federal gag law was constitutional.  “Think about that,” said Nichols.  “The Supreme Court of Canada thinks it’s OK for politicians to put people in jail for the ‘crime’ of expressing an opinion.”

Gag laws first came on the Canadian federal scene back in the early 1980s when Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister.  “Now Trudeau did not really like the NCC all that much,” Nichols chuckled, “because we kept running ads opposing his agenda.”  So finally Trudeau had had enough and in 1983 passed Canada’s first-ever election gag law, “a law that seemed specifically designed to shut up the NCC,” said Nichols.  This law made it illegal for independent citizens or groups to spend their own money to support or oppose political parties or candidates during federal elections. 

The NCC raised the alarm in the media and went to court to overturn it.  In June 1984, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruled that Trudeau’s gag law was unconstitutional. 

In 1993, then Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney enacted his own gag law. Once again the NCC took it to court, and the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled Mulroney’s gag law to be unconstitutional.

In 1996, B.C.’s NDP government enacted a provincial version of the gag law.  Once again, the NCC went to court.  Once again freedom won. In the year 2000 the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled the NDP gag law to be unconstitutional.

In spite of the fact that the courts had made it clear that gag laws are unconstitutional, Jean Chrétien enacted his own gag law in 2000.  Under this law anyone spending more than $500 on election advertising must register with Elections Canada.  It’s illegal for citizens or independent groups to spend more than $150,000 on national election advertising. “And if you know anything about the costs of media,” said Nichols, “you will know it’s absolutely impossible to run anything remotely resembling an effective ad campaign with that kind of money.” 

Under Chrétien’s gag law, election advertising also includes any ads that take on an issue that is associated with any party or candidate.  In other words, it could now be a crime to run ads during elections denouncing or endorsing the Kyoto Accord or the gun registry program or virtually any other issue you can think of.

If you break Chrétien’s gag law, you could be thrown in jail for up to five years!

In 2001 RCMP officers burst into the NCC office and charged the NCC with violating the gag law.  Apparently, the bureaucrats at Elections Canada believed a TV ad the NCC ran during the 2000 federal election broke the gag law.  Ironically, the ad simply informed Canadians about the NCC’s court challenge to the Chrétien gag law!

“The Prime Minister is using the gag law exactly as we feared he would,” Nichols complained, “as a political weapon to hammer his enemies.”

The Toronto judge dismissed the charges against the NCC as unconstitutional.  And in December 2002 they won an even bigger victory for freedom when the Alberta court of Appeal ruled that Chrétien’s gag law was unconstitutional.  Then Chrétien brought his case before the Supreme Court of Canada where “he had handpicked six of the nine Supreme Court justices,” Nichols pointed out.

On February 10th, 2004 arguments were made before the court.  The NCC had three lawyers representing freedom against not only the federal government but an army of lawyers from Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba.

“It was truly a David and Goliath battle,” said Nichols.  “But unfortunately this time David got stomped.”  On May 18th 2004, just a few days before the election was to be called the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 6-3 in favour of the gag law.

Nichols explained, “The court essentially said we needed to sacrifice freedom in the name of fairness.”  Since political parties have spending limits imposed on them it was only fair that spending limits be imposed on others. 

“And here’s another idiotic argument the court employed to justify the gag law,” Nichols complained,  “The court said we needed a gag law because there was a danger –and these are exact words from the ruling – ‘that political advertising may manipulate or oppress the voter.’  This was in spite of the fact that the government could not produce a shred of evidence in support of this position.” 

Previously, whenever the government wanted to take away or regulate a charter-guaranteed freedom they needed to convince a court that they were doing so to protect society from some kind of harm.  In this case the court said “reasoned apprehension” was enough. It was enough for the politicians to argue that unregulated free election speech might cause harm.  This is a dangerous precedent for freedom. 

“And now that the court has given politicians the right to impose gag laws, you can expect them to pop up in the provinces too – in Ontario and Manitoba,” warned Nichols.  He promised that the NCC will not give up the fight.  They will test the law and they will take it to the people to convince the politicians to repeal the gag law. 

Visit our web site at www.libertarian.on.ca for a copy of Gerry Nichols’ speaking notes.  For more information on the National Citizens Coalition, go to www.morefreedom.org.   

The delegates to our Annual General Meeting passed a resolution requesting the Executive find some way we could use our status as a registered political party to help organizations like the NCC get their message out during an election.